Editor's Column: Image and reality of University of Michigan athletics and academics

The University of Michigan has worked hard to create and then nurture its image as a place where academics overshadows athletics.

Ed Petykiewicz

The message is embedded in the campus and in the lives of U-M alumni, and it's accepted as a truism within the culture of national college athletics.

The U-M brand also reaches into high schools, where potential athletic recruits receive media guides describing the athletic department's Academic Success Program as "devoted to the intellectual, social and personal growth of Michigan student athletes."

And top administrators such as Athletic Director Bill Martin will tell anyone willing to listen about the pride in watching athletes achieve in classrooms as well as in their sporting endeavors.

Martin, in a bit of bravado, also has said he wants to see the graduation rates of athletes top the university's overall graduation rate.

The U-M message of academics trumping athletics, smoothly spinning along, was rocked last year when former Michigan football standout Jim Harbaugh said U-M admits academically borderline students and then keeps them eligible for sports by steering them into specific academic areas. The former quarterback, now the Stanford University football coach, said that he wasn't even allowed to major in history because the courses required too much reading.

It was a significant moment. For the first time in a very long time, one of the most cherished mantras of the athletic department was called into question - and it was done by one of their own, an iconic "Michigan man."

Harbaugh's comments opened the door to a possible discussion about whether Michigan is a place where academics come first, or something substantially less.

Yet, criticism from within the athletic department lacked thoughtfulness and never really responded to the possibility that Harbaugh's comments might be true. Martin, for example, said he was looking forward to playing Stanford in football.

When image and reality walk different paths, the gap between what public officials say and what they really do becomes fertile ground for reporting to the public and for community discussion. That philosophical belief is what started our review of Michigan athletics. There was no rush to judgment, no zealous drive to unmask an institution.

Almost as soon as we assembled a team of reporters for the project, we began discussions about ethics and how our staff members should conduct themselves in a variety of situations that could emerge as we gathered information.

Not too long after that, we started asking questions, and the interviews provided unexpected topics to pursue. Our information-gathering odyssey ended about seven months later. We interviewed 87 people, traveled across the country and gathered records. A number of documents sought under Michigan's Freedom of Information Act were denied by the university. Disclosure of other records came at a snail's pace. The most meaningful documents were obtained without the university's help.

Along the way, we discovered that the intersection of athletics and academics doesn't always fit the map drawn for the public by the university.

And we wrestled with issues such as how much information we should disclose about individual athletes. In the end, our approach was conservative. We decided to share enough to help readers understand how the system really works.

For me, the stories present a sad scene - few people on campus are asking whether U-M athletes, especially those who are academically challenged, are getting a quality education.

Most administrators we interviewed tried to put the focus on university procedures and protocols instead of whether some courses are being used to move academically challenged athletes through the system in order to keep them eligible to play sports.

Other U-M officials, like Martin and university President Mary Sue Coleman, declined repeated requests for interviews. After we were told for months that Coleman was too busy, she agreed to an interview if it was done through e-mails. We declined, believing that a face-to-face interview offered the best chance for frank discussion as well as the opportunity to ask follow-up questions.

At a university known for its research and collective intellectual curiosity, we found a lot of leaders were unwilling to look into the petri dish of the academic life of athletes. They were far more comfortable trying to polish the surface of academics and athletics rather than looking under it.

Based on U-M's angry response to Harbaugh's comments, there's a good chance similar volleys will be tossed our way. I also expect some readers won't like our stories, while others will understand that the issues affect the lives of U-M athletes. I hope the stories are the first step in an open and honest discussion about academics and athletics at U-M.

Let us know what you think. Our editorial about the issues raised in the stories will follow the four-day series, which begins today. We haven't written it yet, and we look forward to hearing your views.